Mansour Engineering provides the right experience and knowledge to manage any project from preliminary layout through to completion.

http://www.mansour.ca – click here to go to Mansour Engineering

http://www.mansour.ca

I hear hoofbeats and a distant chorus . . .

In other words, your questions get at the cost of achieving those goals – and that’s important, and conservatives (including those I linked to) argue those costs are relatively low because (1) the Afghan people are eager for liberal democracy so it won’t be too difficult to achieve it, and (2) for all our economic problems, we are an enormously wealthy country and can afford investing in Afghanistan’s development. But what’s also important are the *benefits* of achieving those goals – do we just get to feel happy that we built a prosperous and functioning democracy, or is our national security and the eradication of Al Qaeda contingent on such a prosperous and functioning democracy? If it’s the latter, then your questions take on an added importance, because the benefits become much more significant and therefore the costs and practicality of the goals become highly relevant. But if we decide at the outset that the benefits aren’t that significant to our national interest, then all we really need to do is recognize that achieving those goals entails some significant cost, which we know it does even if we can debate exactly what that cost is.

Your questions then aren’t secondary, so I was wrong to say that, but they are interrelated to the issues I discussed in this post. The practicality of developing a democracy in Afghanistan is important, but so is the extent to which it’s desirable and beneficial, and you seem to be avoiding that somewhat fundamental question.

Those are good questions, but those are the questions that come second to defining what our strategic goals are. We have to first decide whether we care about what type of government Afghanistan has before we make actual decisions about what type of government we want. What I’m suggesting is that it’s conceivable that a non-liberal democracy could develop in Afghanistan while still achieving America’s strategic interests – that we need not eliminate corruption and hold provincial elections to achieve our goals. Others would argue that we must work to develop a functioning democracy, otherwise we are betraying our interests and our basic morality. The point is that we have to keep in mind our endgame – do we start withdrawing once we feel comfortable that Al Qaeda is no longer freely operating in the region, or do we stay until Afghanistan has functioning democratic institutions? If we don’t answer that question at the outset, we are going to have trouble down the line.

Second of all this is not a campaign, Josh, so enough with the think of the children type rhetoric.

Next, where is the susbtance of this post and the comments contained therein? The suggestions provided by the loyal opposition blog and President Obama’s advisors are nothing more than the same old rhetoric that was expressed by Bush II and every president dating back to Reagan. Probably even furthere. The “legitimate government that doesn’t have to be a democracy” is Cold War thinking which is arguably how we got into this situation in the first place and the concept of building more infrastructure is great until we start talking about what infrastructure means in that part of the world. Are we talking about building the equivalent of an Eisenhower Expressway, or is it updating electrical grids? What is good governance? Is the government built upon the Shar’ia? Can Americans ever truly feel comfortable supporting a government built ENTIRELY UPON religion? What is respect? How do the Aghanis define respect? Oh, and how are we going to finance all of that?

None of the comments provided by anyone above provide any sort of substance. These commentors instead rely upon terms which necesitate specific definition, yet they don’t provide it. It is hard to critique a plan that has no concrete measuring stick, no means of comparison. The majority of the contributors to this blog demanded that when Bush was in office. They were right to do so. They should do the same for Obama.